Hey, court jesters are funny. But their main role is to instigate ;)

I've been thinking of something lately. One of my main distrust of what a Democratic Congress will push through in a one-party government is the fear (real or imagined) of punitive legislation. In other words, to swing the pendulum to the opposite side, they will go after enemy industries (like energy and computer companies, for example). I have always been set against that for I believe in promoting technological and industrial advancements and changes to make things better. Encourage the developments of alternative ways of making existing energy exploration and production much cleaner and safer. Having assholes like Al Gore calling for civil disobedience will not help and is a turn-off. I am also reminded of the resources that were spend to go after Microsoft in the previous decade. I am a believer in technology and we need promoters, not attackers.

At risk of a threadjack.. the sanctions on Microsoft are not NEARLY enough. Thought that would be clear by now.

:rolleyes: Yes. Al Gore is such an asshole.

It was an assholish thing to say.

Well there is a reason why Tennessee doesn't like him.

Because the American people haven't yet grasped the seriousness of the situation and the party that pushes it could be punished at the polls. They wanted it to be passed 50-50 so that it would be seen as non-partisan.

analysis

Analysis: House vote against bailout wounds McCain - Yahoo! News

nice article flasch, although it doesn't reference the fact that we spent all afternoon discussing, that it was a brokered 50/50 compromise -- which for an AP article you'd think it would.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Obama has made substantial gains in the polls over the past two weeks, and the RCP electoral college projection now stands at Obama 301 McCain 237.

You're aware that no matter how many times Obama says he was right about Iraq before we invaded, his stated plan for a hasty is still wrongheaded. Yes you get credit for being right back then, although I'm not so sure his exact position was as accurate as he now frames it in hindsight. I'm going to vote based on what you are going to do, quit belaboring the point.

Wow. Obama over 330 EV on the Intrade predictions (Including Indiana, which has gone Democratic.. since like well.. never... 2004 was Bush with 60%). There's still a month to go, McCain has to do SOMETHING soon, or he'll be crushed by the spector of runaway momentum.

And I'm telling you that I find that to be a load of sh%&. The Democrats are the ones in power. They have the votes to pass legislation and should do so to force Bush to either sign it or veto it. When did the majority leadership suddenly become a bunch of pussies (to borrow a phrase from a poster on this board)?

Now is not the time to pacify people. Now is the time for the Democrats to take a stand and create a bill that will make them the hero in this situation. The fact that they are looking for an agreement that allow them to pass the blame if it fails is very concerning. Pass a partisan bill and take a chance that you may actually be right and the Republicans are wrong.

Good to see at least one market going up. :D

fixed, but essentially you cant see it was already a brokered bill. And youre completely ignoring the importance of confidence. ok.

HEY! You can't call me partisan in a post and then take it out in an edit! This is what I'm talking about with Democrats! Stick to your guns! :D

Its not that. Usually when I type a post I am filled with piss and vinegar and then I read it and edit it to be nice because I didnt mean to be attacking. I do that ALLLLLL the time. And it is partisan for you to say Dems could just pass it and ignore many FACTS. One it was a brokered deal. so the GOP went against their word. The GOP got their feelings hurt and put the entire country at risk. This will effect McCain and it already has according to the polls.

Nice leadership McCain showed there. THAT'S what is killing him. As was mentioned in the thread earlier. Obama is widening the gap. We need some more debates where McCain just looks like an angry old man, and we can put this puppy to bed.

But, if the Dems were that set on the bailout, make a partisan bill and shove it down the GOPs throat and see if they like it. I mean they could take a chance.

CONFIDENCE.

No one got their feelings hurt. Pelosi gave them an out to blame it on her when the true reason the bill didn't pass was that it was a lousy bill and the general public hammered the phone lines of their given congressman. If you believe that the 100+ Republicans voted against it because their feelings were hurt, what does that mean the 90+ Democrats who voted against it were doing? Was it a bi-partisan effort by Pelosi to hurt feelings on both sides?

So, to summarize, your argument is that the public wouldn't buy into the bailout if it was passed along party lines? So we're now judging the quality of a bill/law based on the level of support on both sides rather than whether it's a quality bill? That's rich.

this has probably been posted before, but reading the transcript i almost spit my coffee out.



pretty much speaks for itself IMO

The GOP didnt use the same language but admitted so immediately following the vote.

What im saying is that the bill encompasses more than just dollar dollar bill ya'll. You dont get that, which is fine, but it is a cornerstone of the bill as well so without the confidence the bill instills it would have less of a successful impact. Until you admit this, we might as well stop talking about it.

Once again, we are dealing with a Democratic-lead Congress with a 9% (probably less after yesterday) approval rating. If the above logic is truly what the Democratic leadership believes, we're far worse off than I ever imagined. That's leadership that should be tossed to the curb in favor of another Democratic senator/congressman who will do what's needed to take a stand for the Democratic Party.

When it's reported in the media that Pelosi was trying to secure extra Republican votes so some of the Democrats in the House could vote against it to further their election hopes and Bohner is using Pelosi's speech as cover for those who voted against it for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. their voters were opposed to it) rather than just saying they opposed it, we've really reached the point where the government has totally forgotten the reason they were elected to the offices they hold. Judging from the backlash by the public over the crisis and partisan actions on both sides of the aisle, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a lot of incumbants get nailed this November no matter which side of the bill they voted on. Just being in Congress at this point makes them guilty by association. We need a clean start.

No, they can't just pass a partisan bill. The Republicans could filibuster in the Senate and the President could veto. I'm not sold on the bill, but everyone in this acted in good faith except the House Republicans.

But why is that a problem? If the Republicans filibuster, then the blame for the delay falls squarely on their shoulders alone. If they don't and Dubya vetos it, the blame falls squarely on his shoulders.

As I said, if they keep playing this game, they're all going to lose out in the end. We need leadership in Congress and the White House and it's becoming blatently obvious that Dubya, Reid, and Pelosi are the last people we need in charge right now. Dubya holds no power over his party and Reid/Pelosi are more concerned about the elections and pissing contests than getting something done and showing true leadership in a time of trouble. It's pathetic.

How is passing a bill in the House knowing that it will get filibustered or vetoed, "showing true leadership"? The points of this bill were negotiated in good faith amongst all of those involved. When it came time to vote, four of the five parties involved in these negotiations acted in good faith and one didn't.

If it's a bad bill, say so and present an alternative, don't whine about your hurt feelings.

+1

if the house republicans had behaved there wouldn't have been a need to worry about a filibuster and the bill would already be signed. it takes an enormous amount of spin for somebody to try to argue they weren't the problem, and frankly i find it insulting to my intelligence

So the Democrats in the House who voted against it 'acted in good faith' while the Republicans who voted in accordance with the wishes of their voting public were out of line for failing to cast their 'yea' vote so the House Democrats could appease their voters?

The picture you're painting only furthers my argument that this Congress is far more f'd up then we even realize. Representing your voters wishes or voting in the best interest of the public has now taken a back seat to playing politics to get elected. That's fine that you're OK with that, but I'm not. The Republicans and Democrats can go fu%$ themselves if they think that they can pull this kind of a stunt while the nation is watching them.

Then consider it an insult. Anyone who claims that only the Republicans or Democrats were responsible for the debacle that occured yesterday in the house is so caught up in the web of polical PR/deceit that they can't see the truth in front of their nose.

Amazing that some repubs are criticizing the dems for trying to act bipartisan. The spin on this is amazing.

What's heartening to me at least is that I don't see the spin getting much play outside of this thread tbh. seems to be pretty universally being shown for its true colors by the media (which isn't to say that Pelosi shouldn't have been nicer, but is to say that the media recognizes and is presenting the story as "the house repubs refused to live up to their end of the agreement"

Yes, because that was what was negotiated. You can disagree with them, but if they lived up to their bargain, they acted in good faith.

Once again, consider this an insult. Anyone who finds any part of this 'heartening' is way out of touch with reality and the general public's feelings on this whole mess.

Thankfully, we all know that the media is the true arbitor of truth when it comes to the political game.

By all means then, put them on their 'Horse of Good Faith' and let them ride away with their conscious fully clean.

+1

(apply to every situation in every election).

+1

But I think the magnitude of the power play varies from situation to situation. This one is of a pretty high order when it comes to importance of resolution in a timely manner.

*shrugs* not going to get drawn into a name-calling, insult-fest with you MBBF. Not worth it.

Edited for correctness

SI

Absolutely true. But objectively speaking, I think this clinches the election for Obama. (Perhaps the safely employed Democrats sought out this debacle for that reason).

And I think this also gives a bump to every Congressional challenger v. every incumbent up for election, whether the challenger be Democrat or Republican.

Possibly, sterlingice, but they do have an ideological objection to government interference and I suspect some of them are sincere even if I don't agree with them. Never underestimate the debilitating power of ideology :)

Complete and utter crap. Completely.

If this were not 5 weeks before an election, the vote would be completely different. Now, if you want to argue that being in a GOP dominated district means they have to vote one way ideologically to not get thrown out on their ass, then you'd be right.

But please, don't even try to make the argument that more than a handful are doing this because they believe it is wrong. There are going to be a few, and I mean less than 20, on the far extreme of each side that would have voted against it because it went too far or not far enough. However, those were not the "swing" votes that disappeared yesterday.

SI

You're the one that brought in the insinuation that if someone didn't agree with your partisan position that it was an 'insult to your intelligence'. I've been about as non-partisan as I'll ever get when I point out that both sides have royally f'd this up from a political perspective. I was just confirming that if you take that kind of a position, it's no wonder you feel insulted.

I'm not sure if I'd use the word 'clinch' on your first point as there are still a few weeks left for some screw-up, but I'd agree that it's by far in his favor at this point. I made the same point earlier in the thread as your second point, so I definitely agree with that.

LOL.......I decided to tune into a train wreck and listen to Rush Limbaugh to see what his take would be on all the excitement yesterday. Imagine my surprise when he took the exact same position I took. He stated that the Democrats were playing politics with these votes and got burned and the Republican should stop pretending that Pelosi's speech had anything to do with their 'No' votes.

Did you feel that a partisan like Rush Limbaugh would actually tell both sides to quit with the politics? I was surprised. Although he has now gone into bashing Dodd and Frank for their role in this mess, so the non-partisan comments didn't last terribly long. :D

Shouldn't it make you ask that if you were agreeing with someone you called a train wreck that maybe your position is flawed?

SI